Mandatory attendance requirement controls promotion in law courses, and credit completion cannot override detention for shortage of attendance.

Minimum attendance under Ordinance 11 was held to be an independent and mandatory prerequisite for progression in the law course. Clause 9 required 75% aggregate attendance, allowed only limited condonation, and barred students below 70% from appearing in the semester-end examination; Clause 9.2 also provided that detention for shortage of attendance prevented promotion and required readmission and repetition of courses. The Court read Clause 11.3(v) harmoniously with these provisions and held that satisfaction of the 50% credit requirement could not override the attendance norm. It rejected reliance on ambiguity or contra proferentem and deferred to the academic standards fixed for professional legal education.

---

---

Issues: Whether students detained for shortage of attendance could be promoted to the next academic year solely on the basis of securing at least 50% of the total credits in the academic year, and whether the attendance requirement under Clause 9 of Ordinance 11 could be overridden by Clause 11.3(v) of the same Ordinance.

Analysis: Clause 9.1 of Ordinance 11 required a minimum of 75% aggregate attendance, with only limited condonation up to 5%, and expressly prohibited a student with less than 70% attendance from being permitted to appear in the semester end examination. Clause 9.2 further provided that a student detained for shortage of attendance would not be promoted to the next academic year or semester and would be required to take readmission and repeat the courses. Clause 11.3(v)(i) required at least 50% of the total credits for promotion, while Clause 11.3(v)(ii) dealt with the consequence of failure to satisfy the promotion criteria or detention in a particular academic year. Reading the clauses harmoniously and in light of Rule 12 of the Bar Council of India Rules of Legal Education, 2008, the attendance norm was held to be an independent and mandatory prerequisite. The Court rejected the contention that the word "or" in Clause 11.3(v)(ii) diluted the attendance condition or that contra proferentem could be invoked, holding that there was no ambiguity requiring such an approach. The Court also emphasized the special importance of regular attendance in a professional law course and deferred to the academic standards fixed by the University and the regulatory body.

Conclusion: The students were not entitled to promotion to the next academic year without satisfying the minimum attendance requirement, and detention for shortage of attendance could not be ignored merely because the credit requirement was met.

---